Big Bang Theory is WRONG - 33 Top Scientists Object

Just because all of our Big Bang Theory models are wrong doesn't mean that Big Bang Theory is wrong. It just means that we don't have the correct model yet. The biggest problem it faces right now, I think, is that it has to obey the law of conservation of energy and it has to come from an open singularity because of this. This is why everyone has leaned toward the idea that it came from particle, anti-particle pair creation and annihilation. Think about it, it is the only principle in physics that allows for free energy! It has been dubbed the conservation loop hole. So then if white holes cannont exist, and it didn't come from a quantum fluctuation of particle, anti-particle pairs then it would have had to have come from some other sort of free energy interaction. In other words, Big Bang Theory is going nowhere fast. It just basically sums up what we already knew from the start. Everything came from a big explosion. We have only touched on being able to describe that explosion more accurately, without any more of a clue to what happened to cause that.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Here is what I see the biggest issue with the Big Bang. The Big Bang says the universe existed only about 13 billion years ago yet we have cosmological structures that are 20 billion years old . And i'm pretty sure you can't be older than the universe. So now we change the theory to allow the Universe to be older than that, now it violates the hubble expansion. Thats only 1 issue i see and i'll explain more.

For these older than the universe structures to be formed in the big bang model you need a certain mass density in the universe so gravity can act fast enough for these to form in this short time span. This density was dubbed "omega 1", yet the universe only has an omega of .01. So how can you explain to me how to get an omega of 1 without inventing this imaginary "dark matter". Not to mention how do we explain the hubble expansion without inventing yet another imaginary "dark energy" with the Big Bang Model?

I could explain more issues but i'm out of time. I'm not saying that we toss aside the Big Bang completely but we have to at least consider it false untill we have irrefutable evidence that explain the many issues in the big bang.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

For these older than the universe structures to be formed in the big bang model you need a certain mass density in the universe so gravity can act fast enough for these to form in this short time span. This density was dubbed "omega 1", yet the universe only has an omega of .01.

Click to expand...

Actually omega has a lower limit of 0.3 currently, based on the available data.

So how can you explain to me how to get an omega of 1 without inventing this imaginary "dark matter".

Click to expand...

Omega is not assumed to be one and dark matter is not necessary for the big bang. Dark matter is theorized to account for the observations of galactic rotation and galactic interactions.

Not to mention how do we explain the hubble expansion without inventing yet another imaginary "dark energy" with the Big Bang Model?

Click to expand...

Dark energy is not what is causing the expansion of the universe. The BBT and the Hubble constant were developed long before dark energy was theorized. Dark energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion - not the expansion itself.

I could explain more issues but i'm out of time. I'm not saying that we toss aside the Big Bang completely but we have to at least consider it false untill we have irrefutable evidence that explain the many issues in the big bang.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately your expanations so far indicate only that you don't understand the theory of the Big Bang. It is always best to learn a theory before you start saying it is wrong!

Quick question. I was of the view that in recent years, physicists have moved away from the BB singularity, atom, point particle, etc, and simply say it happened everwhere at the same time. Yet various posters in the above posts, seem to acquiesce to the singularity concept.

Quick question. I was of the view that in recent years, physicists have moved away from the BB singularity, atom, point particle, etc, and simply say it happened everwhere at the same time. Yet various posters in the above posts, seem to acquiesce to the singularity concept.

It's a matter of descriptive. See, people were getting a lot of misunderstandings out of the notion that "everything came from nothing" or "Everything came from a tiny little point..."
Thing is, wording it so, "It happened everywhere at the same time," makes more sense and kind of sidesteps the whole 'origin' problem.
No one knows much about the actual Moment of "suddenly coming into existence" nor about what caused it or what happened before that. Chances are that we'll never really know it.

originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Quick question. I was of the view that in recent years, physicists have moved away from the BB singularity, atom, point particle, etc, and simply say it happened everwhere at the same time. Yet various posters in the above posts, seem to acquiesce to the singularity concept.

What is the present understanding on this ?

Click to expand...

I agree with Neverfly. Based on the expansion of space, then in the distant past ~14.5 billion years ago all of the universe was in one place. That implies a singularity but was there actually a singularity? Dunno. I think that is why you will hear the termononolgy of; unimaginably hot and dense (I have the strange urge to make a dumb blond joke) instead of singularity. Regardless if there was a singularity or not, the BB still did happened everywhere, which is to say it did not happen at some place and the universe is expanding outward from that point.

I agree with Neverfly. Based on the expansion of space, then in the distant past ~14.5 billion years ago all of the universe was in one place. That implies a singularity but was there actually a singularity? Dunno. I think that is why you will hear the termononolgy of; unimaginably hot and dense (I have the strange urge to make a dumb blond joke) instead of singularity. Regardless if there was a singularity or not, the BB still did happened everywhere, which is to say it did not happen at some place and the universe is expanding outward from that point.

Click to expand...

So really, we can attribute no size ? Even an instant after the event ? You hear scientists say it was the size of an apple / moon / planet, after some (very small) time. This has always confused me.

Dood, no, try not to presume to speak for everyone 'round here, including me. I'm not talking about zero time.

What I've understood is that at zero time, the physics are unknown. But I have read from many mainstream scientists, that subsequently, the universe was the size of an apple, a moon, a planet, etc. That's what I was enquiring about in my earlier post.

Dood, no, try not to presume to speak for everyone 'round here, including me. I'm not talking about zero time.

What I've understood is that at zero time, the physics are unknown. But I have read from many mainstream scientists, that subsequently, the universe was the size of an apple, a moon, a planet, etc. That's what I was enquiring about in my earlier post.

Click to expand...

Ok, well again, the answer is not so clear.
I've certainly never read nor heard anything saying the Early Universe was the size of a planet (except for a very brief moment during inflation).
The mainstream cosmology supports a gravitational singularity.
The problem you might run into is those naysayers that look at that and say, "What? These idiot scientists say the universe came from a Black Hole?!"
If you've been hearing all these ummm <cough> "Alternate Sizes," I'd speculate that someone was avoiding that singularity.

Ok, well again, the answer is not so clear.
I've certainly never read nor heard anything saying the Early Universe was the size of a planet (except for a very brief moment during inflation).
The mainstream cosmology supports a gravitational singularity.
The problem you might run into is those naysayers that look at that and say, "What? These idiot scientists say the universe came from a Black Hole?!"
If you've been hearing all these ummm <cough> "Alternate Sizes," I'd speculate that someone was avoiding that singularity.

Click to expand...

The terms apple / moon / planet I used, are arbitrary ones, to simply denote statements I have heard from mainstream science, to the effect that the universe began at time zero from whatever (unknown) and quickly expanded from the minutest size to what we know it to be today. I was enquiring if there are mainstream scientists here, who can comment emphatically on this. If it's not clear to you, that's OK.

The terms apple / moon / planet I used, are arbitrary ones, to simply denote statements I have heard from mainstream science, to the effect that the universe began at time zero from whatever (unknown) and quickly expanded from the minutest size to what we know it to be today. I was enquiring if there are mainstream scientists here, who can comment emphatically on this. If it's not clear to you, that's OK.

Click to expand...

Ok, now you're just being difficult. You're saying that you chose arbitrary wording and were unclear, and that I cannot comment because you were unclear to me.

AFTER the initial BB singularity (whatever that was) DID the universe increase in size such that at some time after (infintesimal as it may have been) it was, SAY, the size of an apple, and then, SAY, the size of our moon, and then, SAY, the size of earth, and then, SAY, the size of the solar system, and so on and so forth ?

And can we say that the, SAY, apple size stage, was actually the approximate shape of an apple ?

Click to expand...

Ok, No. The "shape" would be undefined. At least by any standard we are familiar with. At that size and that 'brief instant" the Universe itself was Undefined. While I might suggest an analogy of Splattering outward, that would still be an absurd description. There simply wasn't a "shape" you could put a reference too. Once the Universe had expanded and had cooled a bit, the physics of the Universe began to define and only then could you try to specify a curvature to space.